Addis Ababa — Simons Kuznets, a well-known economist and Nobel Laureate who examined and explained the relationship between economic development and income distribution earlier, also tried to tackle the issue of economic development and its effects, good or bad, on the environment.

Labeled as the Environmental Kuznets Curves, its core finding is that, in the course of economic development, countries will experience adverse environmental quality in the beginning and then improved quality, when the economy begins gliding smoothly.

This finding incidentally does not deviate much from the usual comments in workshops and seminars. It is hinted that countries that have torrid economic growth tend to act in an unrestrained manner. They build highways by recklessly clearing forests and enthusiastically bulldozing farmlands. They will do anything to produce agricultural commodities for export through the conversion of grasslands, nature reserves, and wildlife parks into crop production.

Factories are made to work round the clock, especially for export products; never mind that these factories spew enormous amounts of filthy carbon to the atmosphere and sludge and solid waste to the community. Usually, when economic ministers announce to the world that their countries have achieved say, a 10% rise in GDP, they don't always tell how they managed their natural resources, in the process. So this is what Mr. Kuznets's findings have concluded was the destructive phase in the economic march.

The next phase, the amiable phase, is the relative slowing down of the go go economy. As economies mature and GDP is no longer the sole arbiter of development, governments begin to legislate environment-friendly policies and they set out to strictly implement them. Quality of life, as opposed to mere quantity becomes the goal in life. Concern for the health of the environment ceases to be the preserve of the few.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve is just a mere finding, of course. There is no recommendation either way. The fact that people decide to wreck their environments for years and years in the name of economic growth is not something not able to be forfeited. Okay, people, in time then, decide to handle their natural resources reasonably better after they have become somewhat richer, but that is no reason for celebration. Here is why?

First, how many years or decades does it take before a country says, "we have had fast economic growth, now we will slowdown and begin to take care of our environment?" I am afraid some countries take too long. African countries achieved their independent status since the 1960. Almost all of them are still in the first phase or the destructive phase of economic development.

The catch here is that by the time a country makes a crucial transition in the economy, the natural resources of a country may have been spiraling down both in quantity and quality. Deforestation, for instance, may have been going on for years, that the forests may have been irremediably reduced.

Quite easily the most irretrievably lost of all natural resources; together with species extinction remains the removal of top fertile soil from farm lands. Bumper crops are what everyone wishes for, but if good harvests result in exploitative farming, it becomes a self-defeating proportion, to begin with.

In related studies, the linkage of population growth, property rights, and poverty with the environment have been examined. In all of them, cautious conclusions were drawn. Cautious because, any one variable in itself may not be enough to explain the full causes of environmental degradation.

Some of the findings are as follows: Population density is clearly linked to degradation rates. Obviously, if there are more people this year than were last year, why, expect more deforestation as people burn more trees; everything else remaining the same. In fact there are some people who venture to say that no matter what we do to save the globe; it won't help if we don't temper our population numbers.

Property rights. The presence or absence of clearly defined property rights is crucial. Security of rights in land tenure or other affects resource conservation.

Poverty. It is thought that poverty is the cause for degradation. But that is not a precise enough conclusion. Poor people may cause overcrowding but may not cause air pollution, since they don't own cars.